35 Years On, I think that “Postliberal” sums it up
Pretty intense insult from a mellow guy like you. What about JC riles you so?(Signing in as "anon" because I can't get my regular ID, "Mango," to work.)
Many things. There has been a long American tradition of ex-presidents not criticizing current presidents. Carter was the one who broke that, and has been a vicious partisan. His comments in Habitat World, which is supposed to be a charitable, not political advocacy magazine, are invariably political and misrepresent his opponents position.He is one of the main reasons we are in the trouble with jihadists we are today.His record on the economy was terrible, perhaps worst ever, yet he criticises others.He has provided moral cover and excuses for leftist dictators for two decades.If you check my December archives, I named him one of my Worst Ten Americans of All-Time.
I remember when I was learning about him in history class as a freshman and the line on him basically was "he was a pretty terrible president, but he's a nice guy and he's been doing a lot of charitable work, so he's been a much better ex-president than president."It's amazing that he's been so awful that we regret even such faint praise these days.
Sigh!! The biggest problem with Jimmy Carter is that he is considered to be an "engineer." The only other "engineer" was Herbert Hoover, who ushered in the Great Depression.So, basically, I can never be President, due to no fault of my own.Maybe I could claim I "didn't inhale" in any of my engineering classes?---BubbaB
AVI...I heard something on the news about this book, and followed your link and read "most" of the article. What exactly is it about this book that has riled so many? Is it something specific that he said, or just a general feeling that he should stay out of this discussion?
My reading of the complaints around the net are that they (we) are angry with Carter for his decreasing objectivity, siding increasingly with the Palestinians, regardless of what information is brought forward. He seems to have some reflexive arithmetic that tells him that the underdog is oppressed, and must therefore be the side that Jesus wants us on. The rightness or wrongness of their actions no longer enters into it.
Post a Comment